Chapter VIII: Front Matter (8)

[207] Quam ob causam dicet aliquis, cum omnia solo Verbo præstare possit, nulloque negotio, Lutum quidem sputo macerat? _In Loc. Johan._

[208] Sed Rationem quandam mysticam habet Vis Rei istius de sputo. _Ibid._

[209] Ei autem qui cæcus fuerat a Nativitate, jam non per sermonem sed per operationem præstitit visum; non vane, neque prout evenit, hoc faciens, sed ut ostenderet manum Dei, eam quæ ab initio plasmavit Hominem, _&c._ Contra Hæres. L. v. c. 15.

[210] _See his Sermons before the Societys for Reformation._ p. 12.

[211] Ipse Salvator noster apertissime ostendit, quod ejus Miracula Aliquid significent, dum ea faciendo, aliquid agit, quod Ratione carere videatur. Nisi enim aliquid significaret, quid necessarium fuit, in hujus cæci Illuminatione, ut Lutum faceret, quo oculos ejus liniret, cui solum dicere sufficiens erat. Quæramus igitur significationem, & videamus quid cæcus iste significet. _In Homil. quarta post quartam Dominicam._

[212] Similitudo erat & Typus futurorum unumquodque quod fiebat in Corpore. Veluti nescio quis à Nativitate cæcus Visum recuperavit. Vere autem cæcus iste erat à Nativitate Gentilium Populus, cui Salvator reddidit Visum, Saliva sua ungens oculos ejus & mittens ad _Siloam_, quod interpretatur missus, mittebat quippe illos quos spiritu unxit ad Apostolos. _In Isai._ c. vi.

[213] Genus humanum est iste cæcus. _In Loc. Johan._

[214] Cæcus humanum Genus significatur. _In Com. Johan._

[215] Cæcus iste a Nativitate, Genus humanum esse videtur à primo homine.----Hæc enim cæcitas non Corporis sed Animæ est. _In Loc. supra laudat._

[216] Per cæcum naturaliter non videntem & illuminatum significat Genus humanum. _In Loc. Johan._

[217] Vere autem cæcus iste erat a Nativitate Gentilium Populus. _In Isai._ c. vi.

[218] Cæci hujus Curationem in figuram & typus vocationis Gentium accepimus. _In Loc. Johan._

[219] Intellige hoc Miraculum spiritualiter. Nam cæcus quidem erat omnis homo à Nativitate, id est, ab Initio Mundi. _In Loc. Johan._

[220] In Sabbato est figura ultimi Temporis. _St. Cyril in Loc. Johan._

[221] Cæcitas est Infidelitas. _In Loc._

[222] Cæcus qui destituitur divino Lumine. _De Adorat._ p. 414.

[223] Cæcus qui sedet in tenebris omnis Ignorantiæ, & non potuit videre Conditorem Mundi. _In Loc. Johan._

[224] Literam Legis sequentes, in Errores, Superstitiones & Infidelitatem incurrunt. _In Matt. Tract._ xxvi.

[225] Cæcus iste est cæcus in Litera, & hoc statu Sanari non potest. _In Marc._ c. viii.

[226] Cæci qui imperiti Scripturarum. _In Loc. Johan._

[227] Lutum vero factum de Saliva oris Domini, ac positum super oculos cæci, significat hic, quod naturæ deerat, opere suo implere Figulum. _In Loc. Johan._

[228] Saliva sua ungens Oculos cæci & mittens ad _Siloam_ quod interpretatur _Missus_, mittebat quippe illos, quos spiritu unxit. &c. _In Isa. c._ vi.

[229] Saliva est perfecta Doctrina. _In Marc._ c. viii.

[230] Ei autem qui cæcus fuerat à Nativitate, jam non per sermonem sed per operationem præstitit Visum; non vane neque prout evenit hoc faciens, sed ut ostenderet manum Dei, eam quæ ab Initio plasmavit hominem. Quapropter expuit in Terram, & fecit Lutum, & superlinivit illud Oculis, ostendens antiquam Plasmationem, quemadmodum facta est, & manum Dei manifestans his qui intelligere possunt, per quam è Limo plasmatus est homo. _Cont. Hæreses. L._ v. _c._ 15.

[231] John ii.

[232] _See his Speech in Convocation, printed in the_ Post-Boy _of_ March _the 30th_.

[233] Rursus hoc in loco calumniantur nonnulli hunc ebriosorum fuisse Conventum, _&c._ _In Loc. Johan._

[234]

Pueri aut Saltatores volutabantur, in his autem
Tibiæ, Lyræque Vocem habebant. Mulieres autem
Cantum accipientes, volvebantur per medias
Quæcunque optimatum erant uxores atque filiæ.
Illi vero ad Saltationem & desiderabilem Cantum
Conversi delectabantur, &c.
In _Homero-Centon._

[235] _Vindication of the Christian Religion._ p. 82.

[236] Luke ii. 48.

[237] Christus asperius respondit, quid tibi & mihi, Mulier? _St. Chrysost. in Loc. Johan._ Vide & _Theopolact. in Loc._

[238] Vide Sanctum Augustinum. _In Loc. Johan._

[239] Apud St. Chrysostomum _In Loc. Johan._

[240] _Vindication of the Christian Religion_, p. 82.

[241] Sed quanam gratia, antequam implerentur, non fecit Miraculum, quod longe fuisset admirabilius? Siquidem aliud est subjectæ Materiæ qualitatem mutare, aliud ipsam substantiam ex nihilo facere. _Chrysos. in Loc._

[242] Sæpe obest Magnitudo, ne Miracula creditu sint facilia. _Theophylact. in Loc._

[243] In Dialog. cum Tryphone, _p._ 364.

[244] In Lib. de Abrahamo.

[245] _In Matt. Tract._ xxii.

[246] Aliquid enim & in ipsis factis innuit nobis, puto, quia non sine causa venit ad Nuptias. Excepto Miraculo, aliquid in ipso facto Mysterii & Sacramenti latet. Pulsemus ut aperiet & de Vino invisibili inebriet nos. _In Loc. Johan._

[247] Nihil dicemus, quid sibi velint Hydriæ, quid Aqua in Vinum conversa, quid Architriclinius, quid Sponsus, quid Mater Jesu in Mysterio, quid ipsæ Nuptiæ? _Ibid._

[248] Per hoc invitatus Dominus venit ad Nuptias, ut ostenderetur Sacramentam Nuptiarum,----Illarum Nuptiarum Sponsus Personam Domini figurabat, cui dictum est, servasti bonum Vinum usque adhuc, Bonum Vinum id est Evangelium servasti usque adhuc. _Ibid._

[249] Sex Hydriæ sunt sex Ætates Temporum capientes Prophetiam pertinentem ad omnes gentes sive in duobus generibus hominum, id est, Judæis & Græcis, sive in tribus propter Noe tres Filios. _Ibid._

[250] Vocatur Salvator ad Nuptias, hoc est, Ecclesiæ voto spiritus sanctus invocatur----Venit cum Discipulis suis, id est, in Loco sancto, Turba sanctorum. Mirabilia Dei Maria Mater expectat, hoc est, Virtutem Christi expectat Ecclesia.----Maria ait, ecce Vina deficiant, hoc est, Vinum Spiritus Ecclesia optat excipere.----Numquid Mulierem dicit Jesu Mariam, quæ Virgo post Pactum inventa est? Sed Ecclesiam alloquitur, quæ non solum Mulier, sed meretrix nuncupatur. _In Sermon_ xcii. _Append._

[251] Vinum multis Locis accipimus Scripturas Sanctas meracissimum Vigorem coelestis sapientæ continentes; quibus incalescant sensus & inebrientur Affectus. Operante Christo in Cana Galileæ Vinum defecit & Vinum sit, id est, Umbra removetur & Veritas præsentatur. Recedit Lex, Gratia succedit. Carnalia spiritualibus commutantur. Bonum quidem Vinum est vetus Testamentum, sed sine spirituali Intellectu vanescit in Litera. _In Sermon_ xc. _Append._ Sed illud quod in Litera Legis aquam sapiebat, dum spiritualiter intellgi fecit, aquam in Vinum convertit. _In Sermon_ xci. _Append._

[252] Per Nuptias, Conjunctionem Christi Ecclesiæ, hoc est Veteris & Novi Testamenti Traditionem debemus accipere. Sponsus est Christus. Architriclinius est Moses. _In Loc. Johan._

[253] Voluores Coeli sunt verè puri & ad cælestis sapientiæ Cognitionem evolare parati. _Clem. Alex. Strom. L._ iv.

[254] Quid mihi & tibi est, Mulier? Procul dubio, Fratres, latet ibi aliquid Mysterii. _In Loc. Johan._

[255] Matt. ix. Mark ii. Luke v.

[256] Paralyticus reppletum videret Theatrum, Aditus Interclusos, Portum obseptum,----Non tamen dixit Propinquis suis, quid hoc Rei est? Expectemus quousque Domus evacuetur, Theatrum dimittatur, recedent, qui congregati sunt, poterimus privatim ad ilium accedere. _In Homil. de hoc Paralyt._

[257] Dicet aliquis valde dimissum fuisse Locum, à quo per Tegulas deposuerunt Paralytici Lectum. _Johan. Nepot. Hieros. in Loc. Luc._

[258] Judæorum Tecta plana erant, & non in Coniformam lastigiata. _In Loc. Luc._

[259] _In Loc. Marci._

[260] Numquid enim facilem illi potuit Accessum redere? _Apud Chrysostom. de hoc Paralyt._

[261] In Paralytico Gentium universitas offertur me denda. _In Loc. Matt._

[262] Paralyticus potest intelligi Anima dissoluta Membris, id est, bonis operibus. _Inter. Quæst. Evang._

[263] Paralysis Typus est Torporis, quo piger jacet in Malitia Carnis, habens desiderium Salutis, & Torporis Ignavia & duplis Cogitationibus, ac si enervatus Membris ostendit. _In Loc. Marci._

[264] In hoc enim quod ait, remittuntur tibi Peccata, interiorem hominem, id est, spiritum paryliticum esse demonstrat. Hoc enim non dixisset, si ad Corporis Infirmitatem respexisset. Non ideo Corpus sanatur, quia Anima a peccatis liberatur. _In Homil. in Dominic._ xix. _post Pentecost_.

[265] Sed qui sunt isti quatuor, qui hunc Paralyticum portant & Domino offerunt. Per hos enim nescio, qui melius quam quatuor Evangelistæ intelligi possunt. Nulla enim Anima nisi per istos Domino offertur, nulla Anima nisi per istorum fidem sanatur. _Euseb. Gallican. ibid._ Sum Paraliticus, quia non operantur & immobiles sunt Vires Animæ meæ ad bonum, sed si a quatuor Evangelistis gestatus & adductus fuero ad Dominum, tunc audiam, remittuntur Peccata. _Theophylact. in Loc. Marci._

[266] Tectum Domus qua Christus docet, ascendendum, id est, Sacræ Scripturæ Sublimitas est appetenda. _Bedæ in Loc. Lucæ._

[267] Non utique in Infirmis exterius, qua turbæ tumultuantur remanendum, sed Tectum Domus, &c. _Ibid._

[268] Patefacto Tecto ægerad Jesum summittitur, quia reseratis Scripturarum Mysteriis, ad Notitiam Christi pervenitur. _Bedæ in. Loc. Marci._ Est Paralysis interior, ut pervenias ad Christum (forte enim latet Medicus & intus est, hoc est, iste verus Intellectus in Scriptoris occultus est) exponendo quod occultum est aperi Tectum, & depone Paraliticum. _Augustin. In Serm._ XLVI. _Sect._ 13. Impediri turbis nisi Tecta id est operta Scripturarum aperiat, ut per hæc ad Notitiam Christi perveniat. _Ejusdam in Quæst. 4ta in Evangel. Lucæ._

[269] Et bene Domus Jesu juxta alterius Evangelistæ Narrationem tegulis esse contecta reperitur, quia sub contemptibili Literarum Velamine, si adsit, qui reseret, divina spiritualis Gratiæ Virtus invenietur. Denudatio etenim Tegularum in Domo Jesu, Apertio est, in utilitate Literæ, sensus spiritualis ac arcanorum coelestium. _In Loc. Marci._

A FIFTH
DISCOURSE
ON THE
MIRACLES
OF OUR
_SAVIOUR_,

In VIEW of the Present
Controversy between INFIDELS
and APOSTATES.

----_Ridiculum acri
Fortius & melius magnas plerumq; secat Res._

The Second Edition.

By THO. WOOLSTON, B.D. sometime
Fellow of _Sidney-College_ in _Cambridge_.

_LONDON_:

Printed for the Author, and Sold by him
next door to the _Star_, in _Aldermanbury_,
and by the Booksellers of _London_, and
_Westminster_, 1728.

[Price One Shilling.]

TO THE
Right Reverend Father in God
_THOMAS_,
Lord BISHOP of _Bangor_.

MY LORD,

Whatever we poor _Authors_ may sometimes pretend to, by the Dedication of our Works to _Great_ Men; it's certain we aim at nothing less than Rewards and Preferments, whether we deserve them or not: That this is my Design in _Dedications_, is so apparent, that it's to no Purpose to deny or dissemble it.

Wherefore else have I made Choice of some of our Learned and Wealthy _Bishops_ for the Patrons of these _Discourses_, which I foresaw would be grateful to their nice and critical Palates? Wherefore else have I been so profuse of such Compliments on their _Lordships_, as I was sure, they would take great Pleasure in? Wherefore else, _My Lord_, do I inscribe _this_ to your _Right Reverend_ Name, but that I expect your Approbation of it, and hope for a Recompence, equal to the Honour, that is here done you.

Some, who are envious, _My Lord_, of my good Fortune in _Episcopal_ Patrons, will not believe that I have receiv'd so much as one _Purse_ of _Gold_ for any of my _Dedications_; but I would have such Malignants to know, that the less I have receiv'd, the more there is behind: And I can moreover assure them, that their _Lordships_ have it in their Heads and their Hearts too, highly to advance me in the World; and if their Endeavours for my Promotion fail not, I shall be a very _Great_ Man.

Such primitive Doctrine, _My Lord_, as I have reviv'd, must, in the Judgment of our _Bishops_, be deserving of their distinguish'd Favours: And if they should Design for me such a _mystical_ Crown of Glory, as the _Gentile Priests_ help'd some of the Fathers of the Church to; I profess without Dissimulation, that, for all my Love to _Mysteries_, it will be more than I am ambitious of: But if the Honour is forc'd on me, it will be my Duty to their _Lordships_, to sound an _allegorical_ Trumpet of their Fame, that their Names, which, might otherwise be soon forgotten, may be everlastingly remember'd for their Love and Good-will towards me.

But the chief Foundation, _My Lord_, of my Merits lies, they say, in my Treatment of the Miracles of our Saviour, after the Manner you handled a Scripture-Prophecy, of a _Man's kicking a Serpent on the Pate, for biting him by the Heels_: And if your _Lordship_ got a _Welsh-Bishoprick_ upon it, what may not I expect for my more meritorious Works of the same kind? The Great _Mr. Scheme_ has celebrated your Praise for that Effort of your Wit: And I must needs say, to your _Lordship_'s Applause, that were not your Thoughts unhappily shackled with Interest and Subscriptions, (an Unhappiness you sadly lament!) you would endeavour to make as pleasant Work with the _Letter_ of the _Old_, as I can do with that of the _New_ Testament.

I have not here Room, _My Lord_, for a sufficient and deserv'd _Encomium_ on your _Use and Intent of Prophecy_; therefore must be content to say of it, in short, that it is a most curious Piece of, what the Fathers call, _Engastromuthism_; or such a singular Specimen of a Webb, spun out of a Man's own Bowels, as one of fewer Brains in his Head can hardly equal.

It was wisely done of your _Lordship_ to caution your Readers against taking your _Book_ for an Answer to Mr. _Grounds_; otherwise it had not been impossible, but some others as well as the _Worshipful Benchers_ of the _Temple_ might have mistaken the _Use_ and _Intent_ of it.

After I had gone thro' your _beautifully-printed_ Work, I wish'd, _My Lord_, for another _Decoration_ of it, that some Annotations out of the Fathers had been subjoin'd to it. How would your Notions then and Theirs about Prophecy have stood as a _Foil_ to each other! How should I then have admired the Difference between a _Rich_ Bishop and a _Poor_ Father as to Wit and Sense! How should I then have contemplated the Usefulness of Ecclesiastical Wealth in our _Clergy_ for the Understanding of the Inspirations of the poor old Prophets!

When your _Lordship_ is call'd upon for another Edition of your _Book_, vouchsafe me the Favour of making some marginal Remarks on it, which shall not be without their good Use. As you know, savoury Sawce makes some sort of Food go down the better; so a little more of that Salt, which Mr. _Scheme_ has too sparingly sprinkled on your _Work_, will give your _Readers_, a right Relish of it: But whether I am indulg'd this Favour or not; I than take another opportunity, according to Promise elsewhere made, of testifying to the World, how much I am,

[Sidenote: October 25. 1728.]

_My LORD,
The Admirer of
Your_ Use _and_
Intent _of Prophecy_,
_Thomas Woolston_.

A FIFTH
DISCOURSE
ON THE
MIRACLES
OF OUR
_SAVIOUR_, &c.

According to Promise in my last _Discourse_, I am in _this_ to take into Examination the three Miracles of _Jesus_'s raising the dead, _viz._ Of _Iairus_'s Daughter[270]; of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son[271]; and of _Lazarus_[272]: The literal Stories of which I shall show to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities, in Order to the mystical Interpretation of them: And because some of our _Bishops_ and _Clergy_ were a little disgusted at the ludicrous Treatment of the _Letter_ of some foregoing Miracles, I will handle these with the more Caution; being as unwilling, as any Man of my primitive Faith can be, to offend weak Brethren.

Whether _Jesus_ rais'd any more from the dead, besides the foresaid three Persons is uncertain from the Evangelical History. St. _Augustin_[273] thinks, he rais'd many others; and he founds his Opinion on the modest _Hyperbole_ of St. _John_, who supposes[274] _the World it self could not contain the Books that might be Written of Jesus_. And _Eusebius Gallicanus_, of whose Mind entirely I am, says[275] the Reason lies in the Mystery, why these _three_, and no more than these _three_ Miracles of this Kind are recorded by the _Evangelists_. But since our _Divines_ are averse to Mysteries on Miracles, I would gladly know their Opinion, whether _Jesus_ rais'd any others from the dead, or not: I have made some search into modern Writers for their Opinion in this Case, but can't find it: And unless I knew their Opinion, it would be lost Labour to argue against either Side of the Question, and much more against both Sides of it: But I can assure our _Divines_, that, which Side of the Question soever they should hold, the Consequence upon the Argument would be neither better nor worse, than that they must of necessity espouse the mystical and allegorical Interpretation of these Miracles, or grant that _Jesus_ literally rais'd none from the dead at all.

But waving that sort of Argument for the present against the _Letter_; these three Miracles are reputed the greatest that _Jesus_ wrought: And I believe, it will be granted on all hands, that the restoring a Person, indisputably dead, to Life again, is a stupendous Miracle; and that two or three such Miracles well circumstanced, and credibly reported, are enough to conciliate the Belief of Mankind, that the Author of them was a divine Agent, and invested with the Power of God, or he could not do them. But God knows, (and for the sake of the Mystery, I am not sorry to say it) this is far from being the Case of these three Miracles before us, or of any one them.

That these three Miracles are not equally great, but differ in Degree, is visible enough to any one, that but cursorily reads, and compares theirs Stories one with another. The Fathers of the Church[276] have taken Notice of such a Difference amongst them. The greatest of the three, and indeed, the[277] greatest Miracle, that _Jesus_ is suppos'd to have wrought, is that of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection; which, in Truth, was a most prodigious Miracle, if his Corps was putrified and stank; or if there were no just Exceptions to be made to the Credibility of the Story. Next to that, in magnitude, is _Jesus_'s raising of the Widow's Son, as they were carrying him to his Burial: And a great Miracle it was to bring him to Life again; if none before or since had been mistaken for dead, and carried to their Graves alive; or if no Impostor and his Confederates could frame such a seemingly miraculous Scene, as is that whole Story, to his own Glory. The least of the three is that of his raising _Jairus_'s Daughter, which in Appearance is so far from a Miracle, that according to the Story itself, she was but asleep, or by the Shrieks of By-standers frighted out of her Senses for the present.

But however it really might be with these three supposed dead and revived Persons; the Case of none of them was well enough circumstanced to serve the Purpose of our _Divines_. I am apt to believe with the Fathers, that _Jesus_ actually did raise the dead; but then, as these Miracles are only recorded for the sake of the _Mystery_, I affirm that none of them, as to the _Letter_, will abide the Test of a critical Examination, nor stand its Ground against such Exceptions as may be made to them. If _Jesus_ was to raise any dead Bodies to Life, for a Testimony of his divine Power and Authority, he would and should have made Choice of other dead Persons, under other Circumstances of Death; and the History of their Resurrection should have been more credibly and carefully transmitted to Posterity, so as there should have been no Room left to make a reasonable Doubt of the Truth of it. But this, I say, is not the Case in the Resuscitation of any of these Persons, as will appear from the following Remarks and Observations upon them. And

1. Observe, that the unnatural and preposterous Order of Time, in which these Miracles are related, justly brings them all under suspicion of Fable and Forgery. The greatest of the three is indisputably that of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection; but since this is only mention'd by St. _John_, who wrote his Gospel after the other _Evangelists_, and above sixty Years, according to the best Computation, after our Lord's Ascension; here is too much Room for Cavil and Question, whether this Story be not entirely his Invention. What could be the Reason that _Matthew_, _Mark_, and _Luke_, who all wrote their Gospel's before _John_, and many Years nearer to the Death of our Saviour, should omit to record this remarkable and most illustrious Miracle of _Lazarus_? They could not forget it, nor be ignorant of it, if the Story had been really true; and to assign any other Reason than Ignorance or Forgetfulness, is hard and impossible. To aggrandize the Fame of their Master, for a Worker of Miracles, was the Design of all the _Evangelists_, especially of the three first, who may be presumed to make a Report of the greatest, if not of all, that _Jesus_ wrought: But that there should come after them an _Evangelist_ with an huge and superlatively great Miracle, and meet with Credit for it, is against all Sense and Reason; neither is there any Story, so disorderly told, in all History, that _Critics_ will admit of the Belief of. The first Writer of the Life of an _Hero_, to be sure makes mention of all the grand Occurrences of it, and leaves no Room for _Biographers_ afterwards, but to enlarge and paraphrase upon what he has written, with some other Circumstances and Additions of less Moment. If a third or a fourth _Biographer_ after him shall presume to add a more illustrious Transaction of the _Hero_'s Life, it will be rejected as Fable and Romance, tho' for no other Reason than this, that the first Writer must have been appris'd of it, and would have inserted its Story, if there had been any Truth in it. And whether St. _John_'s Story of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, that Miracle of Miracles, ought not to be subjected to the like Criticism upon it, _Christians_ may consider, and _Infidels_ will judge.

What then was the Reason, I ask again, that the three first _Evangelists_ neglected to record this renown'd Miracle of _Lazarus_? And why too (may I enquire here) did not _Matthew_ and _Mark_ mention the Story of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son, as they could not but know of it, if true, more certainly than _Luke_, the Companion of _Paul_, who alone has made a Report of it? _Grotius_ says,[278] _it may seem strange that this illustrious Miracle of the Widow's Son_ was omitted by _Matthew_ and _Mark_: And what is the Reason that _Grotius_ gives for this strange Omission? Why, he tells us[279] _that these two Evangelists were content with one miraculous Instance of this Kind, by which Christians might judge of_ Jesus'_s Power in others also_. And is this Reason sufficient? True it is, they were content with one Instance; but if they had made a Report of two or three more of the same sort, no body would have thought their History of _Christ_ overcharg'd with impertinent and tautological Repetitions. But one Instance of a Person rais'd from the dead, they were, says _Grotius_, content with: And I'll grant one to be sufficient: But which then should they, as wise and considerate _Historians_ have made Choice of, the greatest or the least Miracle? The greatest, to be sure, and that was of _Lazarus_, or of the Widow's Son, if they knew of either. But instead of either of these, they tell us the Story of _Jairus_'s Daughter, that is[280] an imperfect and disputable Miracle, in Comparison of the other two, which consequently they knew nothing at all of, or they would have preferr'd the Report of them.

If _Matthew_, the first Writer, had recorded only the Story of _Lazarus_, whose Resurrection was the greatest Miracle; and if _Luke_ had added _that_ of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son; and _John_ lastly had remember'd us of _Jairus_'s Daughter, which the other _Evangelists_, not through Ignorance or Forgetfulness, but studying Brevity, had omitted, then all had been well; and no Objection had hence lain against the Credit of any of these Miracles, or against the Authority of the _Evangelists:_ But this unnatural and preposterous Order of Time, in which these Miracles are recorded (the greatest being postponed to the least) administers just Occasion of suspicion of the Truth and Credibility of all their Stories. And it is lucky for Christianity, that _Jews_ and _Infidels_ have not hitherto hit upon the _Absurdity_ of this preposterous Narration, or they might have form'd a cogent Objection against these Miracles thus, saying;

"_Jesus_, it is manifest, rais'd not the dead at all. The only
Person, that Christians can reasonably pretend, he did raise, was
_Jairus_'s Daughter, whom _Matthew_ writes of; and she, according to
the Story was only in a Sleep, or an Extacy, when _Jesus_ revived
her. But the _Galileans_, who were after a Time call'd _Christians_,
finding their Account in a Resurrection-Miracle; _Luke_, for the
former Advantage of the Cause, devised another Story of better
Circumstances, in the Widow of _Naim_'s Son: But this not being so
great a Miracle, as the Church still wanted; _John_, when no body
was alive to contradict and expostulate with him for it, trumps up a
long Story of a thumping Miracle, in _Jesus_'s raising of _Lazarus_,
who had been not only dead, but buried so long that he stank again.
But to prove the Story of this Miracle to be false and fabulous, we
need say no more than that it was last recorded. If there had been
any Truth in it, the first _Evangelist_ would have remember'd us of
it.

"We don't suppose, that you Christians, because of your Prejudices,
will subscribe to this Account, that we thus give of the Rise of
these Miracles: But this is certain, that if these three Miracles
had not been reported of _Jesus_, but of _Mahomet_, in the same
disorder of Time, by three different Historians, you would
presently have scented the Forgery and Imposture: You would justly
have affirm'd that the three Stories were apparently three Fables
and Falsehoods; and that the three Historians visibly strove to
outstretch each other: That the _first_ was sparing and modest in
his Romance; and the _second_, being sensible of the Insufficiency
of the former's Tale, devises a Miracle of a bigger Size; which
still not proving sufficient to the End proposed; the _third_
Writer, rather than his Prophet's Honour should sink for want of a
Resurrection-Miracle, forges a Story of a monstrously huge one;
against which it is, and always will be Objection enough, that it
was not related by the first Historian. So would you Christians
argue against these three Miracles in another Impostor's Case; and
there is not a judicious _Critic_ in the Universe, that would not
approve of the Argument, and applaud the Force of it, tho' you will
not endure the Thoughts of it in the Case of your _Jesus_.

"But to come nearer home to you; supposing _John_ (who was then
above a Hundred, and in his Dotage) had not reported this Miracle
of _Lazarus_; but that _Clement_ (joining it with his[281]
incredible Story of the Resurrection of a _Phoenix_) or _Ignatius_,
or _Polycarp_, or the Author of the _Apostolical Constitutions_ had
related it; would not your Christian _Critics_ have been at work to
explode it? There is not an antient extra-evangelical Tradition of
any Note about _Jesus_, that some or other of your _Critics_ have
not boggled at; but such a Story as this of _Lazarus_ would have
been received by none. I question, whether Mr. _Whiston_ would not
have rejected the _Constitutions_ upon such a Story in them; or if
his Fancy for some other Things in them had overcome his Reason
against this; yet _Bishop Smallbroke_, who has written against the
Canonicalness of the _Constitutions_, with his judicious
Animadversions upon this Story, would absolutely have overthrown
their Authority. And what would he have said here? Not only that
the Miracle smells rankly of Forgery and Fraud, or the
_Evangelists_, especially _Matthew_, had never forgotten to record
it; but he would have reminded us of intrinsic Notes (_hereafter to
be mention'd_) of Absurdity, and Incredibility, that would for ever
have cashier'd the Belief of it. And whether we _Infidels_ ought
not to take the same Liberty to criticize on _John_'s Gospel, which
you do on your Apostolical Fathers, who wrote before him, let the
impartial and unprejudiced judge: If in justice we ought to take
it; we are sure we could give two or three notable Reasons (but
that We will not now put Christians out of Temper with them) why
_John_ may be suspected of a Mistake or Fraud in this Miracle,
rather than any other Christian Writer of the _first_ or _second_
Century."

To such an unhappy Objection, arising from the unnatural and preposterous Order of Time, in which they are recorded, are these three Miracles before us obnoxious. And I am thinking how Ministers of the Letter will be able to get over it. As for my self, who am for the mystical Interpretation of these Miracles, I have a solid and substantial Answer at hand to the foresaid Objection, an Answer that curiously accounts for the Order of Time in which these Miracles are related; but my Answer will not please our _Divines_, nor stand them in any stead; therefore they must look up another good one of their own, that will comport with the _Letter_; or the said Objection, improved with another presently against _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, will be too hard, not for Christianity it self, but for their Ministry.

_Grotius_, being aware of the foresaid Objection, has given us such a[282] Solution of it as then occurr'd to his Thoughts. Dr. _Whitby_, not being satisfied with _Grotius_'s Solution, has given us[283] another: But how weak and insufficient both their Solutions are, I will not spare Time to consider, till some _Writer_ shall appear in Defence of the Sufficiency and Strength of one or other of them. And so I pass to a

2. Second Observation, by Way of Objection to the _Letter_ of these Miracles, and that is, by enquiring, what became of these three Persons after their Resurrection? How long did they live afterwards? And of what Use and Advantage were their restored Lives to the Church or to Mankind? The Evangelical and Ecclesiastical History is entirely silent as to these Questions, which is enough to make us suspect their Stories to be merely romantick or parabolical; and that there were no such Persons rais'd from the dead; or we must have heard somewhat of their Station and Conversation in the World afterwards. It's true, that _Ephiphanius_[284] says, what he found among Traditions, that _Lazarus_ lived thirty Years after his Resurrection: But how did he spend his Time all that while? Was it to the Honour of _Jesus_, to the Service of the Church, and Propagation of the Gospel? Of that we know nothing; tho' in Reason and Gratitude to _Jesus_, his Benefactor, it ought to have been so spent; and if it had been so employ'd, History surely would have inform'd us of it. According to the Opinion of _Grotius_, in a Citation above, _Lazarus_ for the rest of his restored Life absconded, and skull'd about the Country for Fear of the _Jews_, who lay in Wait for him; which is a Suggestion, not only dishonourable to _Jesus_, as if the same Power, that rais'd him from the dead, could not protect him against his Enemies; but reproachful to _Lazarus_ himself, who should have chosen to suffer Death again, rather than not bear an open Testimony to _Jesus_, the Author of his Resurrection. However it was, we hear no more of _Lazarus_, than that he lived thirty Years afterwards, which Tradition, without other Memorials of his Life, brings the Miracle more under suspicion of Fable, than if he had dy'd soon after it. And of _Jairus_'s Daughter, and of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son, which is astonishing, we read nothing at all. Does not this Silence in History about them, make their Miracles questionable, and but like _Gulliverian_ Tales of Persons and Things, that out of the Romance, never had any Being.

_Jesus_ did but[285] _call a little Child, and set him in the midst_ of his Disciples; and that Act was remember'd in the Piety and Zeal[286] of _Ignatius_, who made a renown'd Bishop. But the Favour and Blessing conferr'd on these three rais'd Persons was exceedingly greater; and one might have expected, that _Lazarus_ and the Widow's Son would have been eminent Ministers of the Gospel. But instead of that, their Lives afterwards were pass'd in Obscurity, or, what's as bad, Ecclesiastical History has neglected a Report of them. What can any one hereupon think less, than that the Favour of the Miracles was lost on undeserving Persons, which I abhor the Thoughts of; or that their Stories are but Parables, which I rather incline to.

Ministers of the _Letter_ may here say, "That the Ecclesiastical History of the Apostolical Age is very scanty; and that many Memorials of other Persons and Transactions are lost and buried in Oblivion: Which unhappy Fate has attended the after-Lives and Actions of these rais'd Persons, or undoubtedly we should have had a famous Record of them." This is not impossible; tho' in the Wisdom of Providence it is hardly probable, but that some more Remembrance must have been left of one or other, if not of all the three Persons; in as much as such a Remembrance of them would now-a-days have no less gain'd a Belief of the Miracles, than this Historical Silence tends to the Discredit of them.

It's somewhat strange, that we hear no more of the after-Fame and Life of any of the diseased Persons, whom _Jesus_ miraculously cured; excepting of the Woman, heal'd of an Issue of Blood; who, tho' she _spent_ ALL _she had, even_ ALL _her Living_ upon _Physicians_; yet out of the Remains of it erected, says[287] _Eusebius_, at _Cæsarea Philippi_, two most costly Statues of Brass, to the Memory of _Jesus_ and of herself, and of the Miracle wrought by him; which Dr. _Whitby_[288] as if he was tainted with Infidelity, endeavours to make an idle Tale of. But excepting, I say this Story of this Woman, we hear nothing of any other heal'd Person; which is Matter of some Speculation: But that the Persons rais'd from the dead should not at all be mention'd in History for their Labours and Lives afterwards to the Honour of _Jesus_, is absolutely unaccountable. Whether such a profound Silence in History about them be not shocking of the Credit of the Miracles, let our _Divines_ consider. I am of Opinion that if _Jesus_ really rais'd these Persons from the dead; this and no other Reason, in the Providence of God, can be given for the Silence of Ecclesiastical History about them afterwards, than to make _dead-letter'd_ Stories of their Miracles, in order to turn our Heads entirely to the Consideration of their mystical Signification, without which the _Letter_, for the Argument before us, is deserving of no Regard nor Credit. But

3. By way of Objection to the _Letter_ of these three Miracles, let us consider the Condition of the Persons rais'd from the dead; and whether they were at all proper Persons for _Jesus_ to work such a Miracle upon, in Testimony of his divine Power. If they were improper Persons according to the _Letter_, it's not credible that He, who was the Wisdom of God, would raise them; or if he did, it was because they were the properest to make mystical Emblems of their Stories.

That _Jesus_ ought to have rais'd all that dy'd, where-ever he came, during the Time of his Ministry, none, I presume, can hold. Two or three Instances of his almighty and miraculous Power of this Kind will be allow'd to be sufficient: But then they must be wisely and judiciously made Choice of, out of a vast Number of Persons, that must needs die in that Time. Where then was his Wisdom and Prudence to chuse these three Persons above others to that Honour? Why were all of them, or indeed any one of them preferr'd to other Persons of a different Age and Condition in the World? Nay, if the _Letter_ of their Stories is only to be regarded, were not all these three Persons almost the improperest and most unfit of any for _Jesus_ to exercise that Power on?

_Jairus_'s Daughter was an insignificant _Girl_ of twelve Years old: And there could be no Reason for raising her, but to wipe sorrow from the Hearts, and Tears from the Eyes of her Parents, who ought to have been better Philosophers, than immoderately to grieve for her. And was here a good Reason for _Jesus_ to interpose with his Almighty Power? No certainly; a Lecture of Patience and Resignation this Case had been enough. And tho' _Jesus_ could raise her from the dead; yet for as much as that Favour was to be conferr'd but on a few; and his Miracles ought to be useful as well as conspicuous, she should have been pass'd by, as an improper Object of his Power, in Comparison of many others, presently to be named. If therefore a better Reason, than what's discernible in the _Letter_, is not to be fetch'd from the Mystery; I can't suppose that _Jesus_, the Wisdom of God would raise this _Girl_; but that the modern Belief of her Resuscitation, exclusive of the mystical Signification, is, as shall be by and by argued, altogether groundless.

The Widow of _Naim_'s Son too was but a [Greek: neaniskos] _Youth_, and whether any thing older than the _Girl_ above is doubtful; but his Life certainly was of no more Importance to the World after, than before his Resurrection. And why was he then one of the _three_ to be rais'd from the dead? Why had he this Honour done him, before others of greater Age, Worth, and Use to Mankind? Some will say, for the Comfort or his sorrowful Mother. And is this Reason sufficient? A Discourse on the Pleasures of _Abraham_'s Bosom, where she would e'er long meet her Son, had been enough to chear her Heart. If therefore the Fathers don't help me to a solid mystical Reason, why the Son and _only Son_ of a Widow was to be rais'd by _Jesus_, as they were carrying him to his Burial, I'll not believe, He would raise this dead _Boy_ rather than many others, for the Manifestation of his Power; but that the Story of his Resurrection, as shall soon be reasonably proved, was all Sham and Cheat.

_Lazarus_ indeed was _Jesus_'s Friend, whom he Loved; and as I will not question but _Jesus_'s Affection was wisely and deservedly placed on him; so here, to Appearance, was a better Reason for the raising of him, than of either of the other Two. But even this Reason, supposing _Jesus_ was to raise but three Persons, is not sufficient against the Cases of many others, that may be put for the Manifestation of his Power, for the Illustration of his Wisdom and Goodness, and for the Conversion of Unbelievers: Consequently, if this Story of _Lazarus_ be not parabolical, the litteral Fact is disputable, and obnoxious to such Exceptions presently to be observed against it, as will not be easily got over.

_Jesus_ rais'd the dead, and wrought other Miracles, say our _Divines_ often, not only to manifest his own Power and Glory, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good: For which Reason his Miracles are useful and beneficial as well as stupendous and supernatural Acts, on purpose to conciliate Men's Affections as well as their Faith to him. On this Topick our _Divines_ are copious and rhetorical, when they write on _Jesus_'s Miracles, as if no more useful and wonderful Works could be done, than what he did. And I do agree with them, that (what Reason bespeaks) the Miracles of a pretended Author of Religion ought to be both as useful and great as well as could be. But such were not _Jesus_'s Miracles according to _Letter_, and least of all his Acts of raising the dead. For if we consider the Persons rais'd by him, we shall find, he could hardly have exerted his Power on any of less Importance to the World, both before and after their Resurrection. A young _Girl_ indeed is fitter to be raised than a decripid old Woman, who by the Course of Nature was to return to Corruption again, as soon as restored to Life: And a _Boy_ rather than an infirm old Man for the same Reason: And _Lazarus_ the Friend of _Jesus_, perhaps, and but perhaps, rather than his profess'd Enemy. But what are these three Persons in Comparison of many others of other Circumstances? Instead of a _Boy_, and a _Girl_ and even of _Lazarus_, who were all of no Consequence to the Publick, either before or since; I should think, _Jesus_ ought to have rais'd an useful Magistrate, whose Life had been a common Blessing; an industrious Merchant, whose Death was a publick Loss; a Father of a numerous Family, which for a comfortable Subsistance depended on him. Such dead Objects of _Jesus_'s Power and Compassion could not but offer themselves, during the Time of his Ministry, and if he meant to be as useful as he could, in his Miracles, he would have laid hold on them. If a few Persons only were to be rais'd from the dead, the foresaid were the properest, whose Resurrection and Return to Life would have begotten the Applause as well as the Wonder of the World; would most extensively have spread _Jesus_'s Fame; and would have gain'd him the Love and Discipleship of all that heard of his being so great a Benefactor to Mankind. Such Instances of his Power would have demonstrated him to be a most benign as well as a mighty Agent; and none in Interest or Prejudice could have open'd their Mouths against him, especially if the Persons rais'd from the dead were selected upon the Recommendation of the People of this or that City. But that an insignificant _Boy_ and a _Girl_, (forsooth!) and the obscure _Lazarus_, are preferr'd by _Jesus_, to such publick and more deserving Persons is unaccountable. Their Story therefore, upon this Argument, savours of Romance and Fraud; and unless the _Mystery_ help us to, what the _Letter_ can't, a good reason for _Jesus_'s Conduct here, the Miracles may be hence justly question'd, and the Credibility of their Report disputed.

But now I am speaking of the Fitness and Unfitness of deceased Persons to have this grand Miracle wrought on them; it comes into my Head to ask, why _Jesus_ rais'd not _John_ the Baptist to Life again? A Person of greater Merits, and more Worthy of the Favour of _Jesus_ and of this Miracle, could not be. If _Jesus_ could raise any from the dead he would surely have raised him; and why did he not? This is a reasonable Question and an Answer should be thought on for it. Was it a Thing out of _Jesus_'s Power? Not so; He was Omnipotent, and could by Force or Persuasion have rescued _John_'s Head out of the Hands of his Enemies; and the tacking it again to his Body, and the infusing new Life into him was no more difficult to _Jesus_, than the Resuscitation of a stinking Carcass. If _Jesus_ had here exerted his Power, and rais'd his dearest Friend and choicest Minister for the Preparation, if not Propagation of the Gospel, none could question his Ability to raise any others, tho' he had rais'd no more. But in as much as _John_ the _Baptist_, one of his singular Merits and Services to _Christ_, was overlook'd and neglected by him; and three useless and insignificant Persons had this Honour done them, the Facts may reasonably be called into question, and, if the Mysteries don't solve the Difficulty, their litteral Stories may hence be accounted foolish, fictitious and fabulous; especially if we consider,

4. That none of these three rais'd Persons had been long enough dead to amputate all Doubt of _Jesus_'s miraculous Power in their Resurrection. As to _Jairus_'s Daughter, she was but newly expired, if at all dead, when _Jesus_ brought her to Life again. _Jesus_ himself says, she was but asleep. And according to _Theophanes Cerameus_[289], and _Theophilact_[290] there is Room to suspect that this _Girl_ was only [Greek: Katochos] _beside herself_. And it is not impossible, but the passionate Skreams of the Feminine By-standers might fright her into Fits, that bore the Appearance of Death; otherwise why did _Jesus_ turn there inordinate Weepers out of the House, before he could bring her to her Senses again? And why did he tell her Parents, that she was only in a sleep, but to Comfort them with the Possibility of his awakening her out of it? Is not this destructive of the Miracle, and making no more of it, than what another Man might do? And is there not some Probability, that here's all of this Story? But supposing she was really dead, yet for the sake of an indisputable Miracle in her Resurrection, it must be granted, that she ought to have been much longer, some Days if not Weeks, dead and buried.

As to the Widow of _Naim_'s Son, there was somewhat more of the Appearance of Death in him, than in _Jairus_'s Daughter. He was carried forth to his Burial, and so may be presumed to be really a dead Corpse. But might not here be Fraud or Mistake in the Case? History and common Fame affords Instances of the mistaken Deaths of Persons, who sometimes have been unfortunately buried alive, and at other Times happily, by one Means or other, restored to Life: And who knows but _Jesus_, upon some Information or other, might suspect this Youth to be in a lethargick State, and had a Mind to try, if by chafeing, _&c._ he could not do, what successfully he did, bring him to his Senses again: Or might not a Piece of Fraud be here concerted between _Jesus_, a subtil Youth, and his Mother and others; and all the Formalities of a Death and Burial contrived, that _Jesus_, whose Fame for a Worker of Miracles was to be rais'd, might here have an Opportunity to make a shew of a grand one. The Mourning of the Widow, who had her Tears at Command and _Jesus_'s casual meeting of the Corpse upon the Road, looks like Contrivance to put the better Face upon the Matter. God forbid, that I should suspect, there was any Fraud of this Kind here; but of the Possibility of it, none can doubt. And where there is a Possibility of Fraud, it is Nonsense, and mere Credulity to talk of a real, certain and stupendous Miracle, especially where the Juggler and pretended Worker of Miracles has been detected in some of his other Tricks. All that I have to say here to this Matter, is, that if _Jesus_ had a Mind to raise the Son of this Widow, in Testimony of his divine Power, he should have suffer'd him to have been buried two or three Weeks first; otherwise, if the Mystery don't account for _Jesus_'s stopping the Bearers of the Corpse upon the Road, here is too much Room for suspicion of Cheat in the Letter of the Story.

_Lazarus_'s Case seems to be the less exceptionable of the three. He had been buried _four Days_, and supposed to be putrified in the Opinion of his Sister _Mary_, and of modern Christians: And if so, his Resuscitation was a most grand and indisputable Miracle. And I could have wish'd, if I had not loved the _Mystery_ rather than the _Letter_, that no Cavil and Exception could have been made to it. Whether _Lazarus_, who was _Jesus_'s Friend and beloved Disciple, would not come into Measures with his Lord, for the Defence of his Honour, and Propagation of his Fame, _Infidels_, who take Christianity for an Imposture, will not question: And whether he would not consent to be interr'd alive, in a hollow Cave, where there was only a Stone laid at the Mouth of it, as long as a Man could fast, none of them will doubt. Four Days was almost too long for a Man to fast without danger of Health; but if those _four Days_ are number'd according to the Arithmetick of Jesus's _three Days_ in his Grave, they are reducible to two Days and three Nights, which Time, if no Victuals were secretly convey'd with him, a Man might fast in _Lazarus_'s Cave. As to the _stinking_ of _Lazarus_'s Carcass: that, _Infidels_ will say, was but the Assertion of his Sister beforehand, like a Prologue to a Farce. None of the Spectators at his Resurrection say one Word of his stinking. And as to the Weepings and Lamentations of _Jesus_ and of _Lazarus_'s Sisters, they will say that was all Sham and Counterfeit, the better to carry on the Juggle of a feign'd Resurrection. And what's worst of all, they will say, that tho' _Jesus_ did call _Lazarus_ forth with a _loud Voice_, as if he had been as deaf as a dead Man; yet his _Face was bound about with a Napkin_, so that the Spectators could not discern what was of the Essence of the Miracle, the Change of his Countenance from a dead to a live one, which is a plain Sign, that it was all Fraud and Imposture.

God forbid, that I should have the same sense with _Infidels_, of this Matter; but to be just to their Suggestions and Imaginations here, I must needs say, there are some other unhappy Circumstances, presently to be consider'd, in this Story, which, if they are not emblematical, make it the most notorious Cheat and Imposture that ever was put upon Mankind. In the mean Time, from what is here argued, it is plain, that _Lazarus_ was not so long dead and buried, as that there is no Room to doubt of the Miracle of his Resurrection.

Now whether these Arguments against these three Miracles, drawn from the Shortness of the Time, in which these Persons lay for dead, have any Force in them, let our _Divines_ consider. If nothing of all this is in their Opinion affecting of the Credit of the Miracles; yet they must allow, that _Jesus_, if he could raise the dead, might have made Choice of other Instances of Persons, more unquestionably dead, who had lain longer in their Graves, and were in a visible State of Putrefaction. And if this grand Miracle of raising the dead was to be wrought by _Jesus_ for the Manifestation of his Glory, and in Testimony of his Authority; he should have exercised his Power on some such Persons, nominated by the Magistrates of this or that City, who with the People should be present at the miraculous Operation, beholding the putrified Bodies, (without a Napkin before their Faces) and how they were suddenly enliven'd and invigorated with new Flesh, after the Similitude of their pristine Form, when in Health and full Strength. Because that _Jesus_ rais'd not some such Persons to Life, I must take the Stories of the three Miracles before us to be but typical of more mysterious Works; or believe them for the Arguments above to be downright Cheats and Fables. And what is enough to induce a modern _Divine_ to this Opinion. Is

5. The Consideration, that none of these rais'd Persons did or could, after the Return of their Souls to their Bodies, tell any Tales of their separate Existence otherwise the Evangelists had not been silent in this main Point, which is of the Essence of Christianity. Are not our _Divines_ here reduced to an unhappy _Dilemma_, either to deny the separate Existence of the Soul, or the precedent Deaths of these rais'd Persons? As Christians, We profess to believe both, which seemingly are incompatiable; or the Evangelists had made such a Relation, as their return'd Souls had given of the other World. Was any Person, in this Age, to be rais'd to Life, that had been any time dead; the first Thing that his Friends and Acquaintance would enquire of him, would be to know, where his Soul had been; in what Company; and how it had fared with him; and Historians would certainly record his Narrative. The same Curiosity could not but possess People of old, when these Miracles were wrought; and if the rais'd Persons had told any Stories of their separate Existance, the Evangelists no less unquestionally would have reported them, in as much as such a Report would have been, not only a Confirmation of that Doctrine; which is of the Essence of our Religion; but an absolute Confutation of the _Sadducees_ and _Sceptists_ of that Age, and of the _Materialists_ of this. But this their Silence in this Case is of bad Consequence, either to the Doctrine of the Soul's Existence in Separation from the Body, or to these Miracles themselves, since we must hereupon almost necessarily hold, that these rais'd Persons were not at all dead, or that their Souls dy'd with them.